Why castling is good

if you don't castle you probally will lose,but if you do, you and your king will be safe

Because when you castled you manage to protect your king more  

You're goddamn right.

Yeah

no it nawt

Well that could happen but if you castle there is lower chance you will be checkmated especially if you are a skilled player 

And the moves were so ridiculous 

k

Why not g6 and then 0-0. 0-0 is "3 moves in 1" as Bronstein used to put it.

It connects your rooks and brings all your pieces into the game.

The notion that "castling is good" is an oversimplification.  Castling, just like any other move, should be done for concrete reasons.  The first player to castle commits himself to defend on one side of the board, which if done too early or without suitable preparation, can quickly lead to trouble in the middlegame.

For example, taking @kingandqueen2017 's advice (which is generally good), you need to clear the back rank of all your minor pieces before castling actually connects the rooks.  If you leave the queen's knight and/or bishop undeveloped, this benefit does not materialize.  Likewise, if one's pawn structure hinders one's defense on the side to which one castles, the results will often be very poor.

In general, it is best to leave open the option of castling as long as possible, but to delay it until your opponent castles or develops with clear preference to one side of the board (in which case you should castle to the opposite side).

It's also important to remember that kingside and queenside castling do fundamentally different things.  O-O-O doesn't put the king in as safe a place, and can leave a2/a7 undefended, but it activates the castled rook to the central d-file, which supports the center and give greater chances for attack.  O-O is safer for the king in most instances, but it only places the castled rook on a flank file (f), which a generally less active deployment.  Queenside castling is generally an attacking, tactical move, with king safety as a minor benefit.  Kingside castling is generally defensive and positional, and it therefore often takes time to prove advantage.

When you're starting out, it's tempting to castle kingside as quickly as possible, as your tactics haven't evolved to the extent that you can necessarily see a central or flanking attack coming.  It avoids losing quickly, but to suggest that it improves one's chances of winning against a stronger player is at best suspect.

It is important for the novice to see longer games for the sake of immediate improvement.  However, over-reliance on early castling can cause stagnation later on.  It can happen as soon as reaching the D level (1200).  Committing too soon to a plan is a fundamental weakness to one's game (Reti and Nimzowitsch taught us this).  Castling, like any move, must be prepared for, and leave the castled player with the flexibility needed for both attack and defense.

I agree with @Dsmith42 to a good extent.

It is something that is principled however just shouldn't be played. Still a chess player must have a certain awareness in position to make castling effective but also safe.

So with this understanding knowing what is happening in a position is very important before you castle, just in case you don't have any hickups.

However even with this said I don't run into any problems like this for the majority. Reason being is because if you are develped properly and in a strong position, rarely will you have problems, even if the position opens up for you. If you have a strong position you will be fine, but if you castle within a weak position that is falling apart, there is only a certain amount of time before castling will hinder you instead of help you.

And this is being said by someone who casltes 96% of his games(I just made up that number probably 2% more). Among this I do it early and often and have no problems as only depending on the position will depend on if you have problems castling or not. If you are in a nice positional and quiet game then you will have a much easier time castling for the majority than in a sharp, crazy tactical game, and even if you do castle in which is the best move you will have to play the game with fireworks happening all over the place and because of this it is made harder.

So depending on your style and how you play the game, your knowledge and application in understanding will determine if you have better games by castling or just make trouble for yourself. Chess is a game that you can lose very easily so it is up to you to make the best options and only then will castling be the best idea as it is the most common idea and best protective idea by the king as proven as without it the game would be much more of a imbalance than anything structured, and not that this is a bad thing, but it puts both player or one player over the other in a serious disadvantage, especially in the opening and middlegame.

i agreeee

since kingandqueen2017 is a FM

just castle in the first 10 moves it brings your Rook into the game and after Re1 you are attacking the middle.But DO NOT CASTLE when you are in a bad position you is a chance of 90% that you are going to lose. So castle early, and as i said,you should NOT castle in a bad position. 

Remember its Re1 to attack the middle.

Do NOT castle in a bad position,but white castled in a bad position this made white's position even worst this is why you should not castle in a bad position.

Castling should always be done by a reason, if you castle for no reason there is 99.9 percent that it is a absurd move.

In this game, white had no reason for castling so castle for a reason.

0-0 in that position isn't that bad...